How did succession in Anglo Saxon England work?

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












I heard that the Witan would elect an Ætheling to be King after the previous King died and it typically followed primogeniture. Was primogeniture a requirement for succession or did the Witan have the full authority to choose among any member of the royal family?



For example, when Alfred the Great’s son Edward the Elder was crowned King by the Witan, Æthelwold the son of former King Æthelred claimed the throne. He didn’t get the throne after Æthelred’s death because he was very young so the throne went to Æthelred’s brother Alfred. He led a rebellion against Edward the Elder that got defeated.



The fact that he lead a rebellion indicates that succession was based on primogeniture not by election. So was there a primogeniture based system or was it electoral?










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.























    up vote
    2
    down vote

    favorite












    I heard that the Witan would elect an Ætheling to be King after the previous King died and it typically followed primogeniture. Was primogeniture a requirement for succession or did the Witan have the full authority to choose among any member of the royal family?



    For example, when Alfred the Great’s son Edward the Elder was crowned King by the Witan, Æthelwold the son of former King Æthelred claimed the throne. He didn’t get the throne after Æthelred’s death because he was very young so the throne went to Æthelred’s brother Alfred. He led a rebellion against Edward the Elder that got defeated.



    The fact that he lead a rebellion indicates that succession was based on primogeniture not by election. So was there a primogeniture based system or was it electoral?










    share|improve this question









    New contributor




    Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.





















      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      2
      down vote

      favorite











      I heard that the Witan would elect an Ætheling to be King after the previous King died and it typically followed primogeniture. Was primogeniture a requirement for succession or did the Witan have the full authority to choose among any member of the royal family?



      For example, when Alfred the Great’s son Edward the Elder was crowned King by the Witan, Æthelwold the son of former King Æthelred claimed the throne. He didn’t get the throne after Æthelred’s death because he was very young so the throne went to Æthelred’s brother Alfred. He led a rebellion against Edward the Elder that got defeated.



      The fact that he lead a rebellion indicates that succession was based on primogeniture not by election. So was there a primogeniture based system or was it electoral?










      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I heard that the Witan would elect an Ætheling to be King after the previous King died and it typically followed primogeniture. Was primogeniture a requirement for succession or did the Witan have the full authority to choose among any member of the royal family?



      For example, when Alfred the Great’s son Edward the Elder was crowned King by the Witan, Æthelwold the son of former King Æthelred claimed the throne. He didn’t get the throne after Æthelred’s death because he was very young so the throne went to Æthelred’s brother Alfred. He led a rebellion against Edward the Elder that got defeated.



      The fact that he lead a rebellion indicates that succession was based on primogeniture not by election. So was there a primogeniture based system or was it electoral?







      england royalty royal-succession anglo-saxons






      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|improve this question









      New contributor




      Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited 2 hours ago





















      New contributor




      Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 2 hours ago









      Jacob Harrison

      112




      112




      New contributor




      Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Jacob Harrison is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          2
          down vote













          There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena ġemōt', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.



          It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:




          No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.




          • Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole

          The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena ġemōt.




          We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.




          If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.






          share|improve this answer





























            up vote
            1
            down vote













            Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.




            No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
            as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
            has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
            necks.




            (Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)



            This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.



            In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.




            In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
            Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
            under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
            the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
            an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
            them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
            Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
            sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
            settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
            acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
            king.




            Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.






            share|improve this answer






















              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "324"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              convertImagesToLinks: false,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: null,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );






              Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









               

              draft saved


              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49193%2fhow-did-succession-in-anglo-saxon-england-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest






























              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes








              2 Answers
              2






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes








              up vote
              2
              down vote













              There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena ġemōt', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.



              It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:




              No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.




              • Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole

              The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena ġemōt.




              We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.




              If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.






              share|improve this answer


























                up vote
                2
                down vote













                There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena ġemōt', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.



                It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:




                No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.




                • Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole

                The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena ġemōt.




                We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.




                If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.






                share|improve this answer
























                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  2
                  down vote









                  There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena ġemōt', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.



                  It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:




                  No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.




                  • Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole

                  The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena ġemōt.




                  We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.




                  If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.






                  share|improve this answer














                  There is a lot that we do not fully understand about the details of the succession in Anglo Saxon England. Indeed, it seems quite likely that the role of the council ('witena ġemōt', or 'Witan', if you prefer) changed over time.



                  It seems certain that the council maintained some role in the succession process throughout the period. However, in general, the system of primogeniture does seem to have applied. We can be certain that by the tenth century, Ælfric of Eynsham was able to write:




                  No man can make himself king, but the people have the choice to select as king whom they please, but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people and they cannot shake his yoke from their necks.




                  • Quoted in The Norman Conquest by Teresa Cole

                  The 'people' in this context were the council, or witena ġemōt.




                  We also know that the council appears to have had the power to remove a king, as illustrated in the cases of Sigeberht of Wessex and Alhred of Northumbria, but this power seems to have been seldom exercised.




                  If you can get hold of a copy, Chadwick's Studies on Anglo-Saxon Institutions contains most of what we know about the role of the council in the succession of Anglo Saxon kings, but be aware that a number of his conclusions and interpretations have been challenged by more recent authors.







                  share|improve this answer














                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer








                  edited 1 hour ago

























                  answered 1 hour ago









                  sempaiscuba♦

                  43.3k4152193




                  43.3k4152193




















                      up vote
                      1
                      down vote













                      Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.




                      No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
                      as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
                      has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
                      necks.




                      (Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)



                      This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.



                      In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.




                      In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
                      Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
                      under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
                      the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
                      an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
                      them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
                      Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
                      sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
                      settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
                      acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
                      king.




                      Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.






                      share|improve this answer


























                        up vote
                        1
                        down vote













                        Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.




                        No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
                        as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
                        has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
                        necks.




                        (Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)



                        This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.



                        In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.




                        In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
                        Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
                        under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
                        the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
                        an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
                        them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
                        Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
                        sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
                        settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
                        acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
                        king.




                        Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.






                        share|improve this answer
























                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote










                          up vote
                          1
                          down vote









                          Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.




                          No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
                          as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
                          has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
                          necks.




                          (Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)



                          This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.



                          In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.




                          In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
                          Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
                          under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
                          the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
                          an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
                          them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
                          Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
                          sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
                          settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
                          acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
                          king.




                          Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.






                          share|improve this answer














                          Technically, at that time kings were decided upon by the Witenagemot (assembly). We're not sure how pro-forma that typically was, but this was the accepted way a new King gained their legitimacy as ruler.




                          No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose
                          as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then
                          has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their
                          necks.




                          (Ælfric of Eynsham, 10th Century)



                          This means there was a certain elective element in the position, and thus at the absolute least, an ability to select someone else in the royal family if the dictates of strict primogeniture would have selected someone less suited for some reason.



                          In the particular case of you mentioned, there had been an agreement (compromise?) made during a previous Witenagemot that Alfred the Great's brother would become King, with Alfred his successor. This dully happened, but when Alfred died, this naturally led to it being debatable who should be next; the children of Alfred or of his brother.




                          In April 871 King Æthelred died and Alfred succeeded to the throne of
                          Wessex and the burden of its defence, even though Æthelred left two
                          under-age sons, Æthelhelm and Æthelwold. This was in accordance with
                          the agreement that Æthelred and Alfred had made earlier that year in
                          an assembly at "Swinbeorg". The brothers had agreed that whichever of
                          them outlived the other would inherit the personal property that King
                          Æthelwulf had left jointly to his sons in his will. The deceased's
                          sons would receive only whatever property and riches their father had
                          settled upon them, and whatever additional lands their uncle had
                          acquired. The unstated premise was that the surviving brother would be
                          king.




                          Perhaps the "original sin" in all of this was King Æthelwulf leaving everything to his sons jointly, rather than the typical medieval custom of leaving everything to the eldest. That basically left a succession time-bomb where everyone in that generation technically had equal claim to the throne. A Witenagemot settled it, but only by putting the crisis off to the next generation.







                          share|improve this answer














                          share|improve this answer



                          share|improve this answer








                          edited 23 mins ago

























                          answered 46 mins ago









                          T.E.D.♦

                          71.8k9157291




                          71.8k9157291




















                              Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                               

                              draft saved


                              draft discarded


















                              Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                              Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                              Jacob Harrison is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                               


                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fhistory.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f49193%2fhow-did-succession-in-anglo-saxon-england-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest













































































                              Comments

                              Popular posts from this blog

                              What does second last employer means? [closed]

                              Installing NextGIS Connect into QGIS 3?

                              One-line joke